36 Comments:

Can't argue that the current feminist movement has show what it is really about. And this is the perfect opportunity for the MRM to stand up and gain serious national attention.

Not necessarily by supporting Palin for VP, but by showing what the feminist movement will do to someone who fits their own standard of feminism(smart, capable, independent), and exposing their hypocrisy for what it is. A hate movement.

"Earth to Mr Hanson, Earth to Mr Hanson"-- where did you imbibe that absurd version of the history of feminism? Not from actually reading anything written by feminists. Simone de Beauvoir's Second Sex (1949) and Betty Friedan's Feminist Mystique ( circa 1963) have ZERO room for women as homemakers. NADA. UH ZIPPO. de Beauvoir and other prominent feminists sought to actually OUTLAW the choice of homemaker-- otherwise too many women might choose it! Friedan likened the homemaker role to brain damaged schizophrenics wandering around in a concentration camp. Feminists have ALWAYS attacked the homemaker and ALWAYS depicted her as a stupid, useless loser. Why ? For women to attain political,social, and economic equality with men, such a dependent role must be abolished. And that is what the feminists sought to do--- in a feminist state, the choice of homemaker would be ILLEGAL. The idea that feminism included and embraced the homeschoolin' homemaker is a preposterous, monstrous lie.

Hanson is either a fraud or a fool-- I suspect he has never read any feminist tracts because this absurd version of the old beloved, benevolent, loving feminism, only desirious of Equal Oppurtunity and never wanting special treatment or ever denying innate sex differences is pure MYTHOLOGY.

This revisionist crap about a "good old feminism" has got to be debunked by going to the original sources.

I sure hope Mr Hanson doesn't devote his " talents " to the history of the Third Reich-- we might learn that Hitler has been unjustly sterotyped as an anti-Semite and that he was actually quite progressive and tolerant in that area --as he was in other areas .

Mr. Hanson writes, as he often does, from his personal experience. His views of WWII are quite anti-Hitler, as his namesake died in that war in the Pacific. He is correct that the feminism most people think of is that of Anthony, and not Frieden.

Before judging him, try one of his books. Perhaps Mexifornia or The Soul of Battle, or even Bonfire of the Humanities, which I have not read.

While I think his heart is in the right place, unfortunately this fellow is part of the problem as he buys into the "Hallmark card" version of the feminism of days past.

Feminism has always been about certain women ignoring their biologically-ordained place in civilized society at the expense of responsible men and women.

He is perpetuating the myth that keeps people thinking "well feminism is good in theory". No. No it is not. In any shape or form. Well, with the caveat that one enjoys the level of prosperity and security of a first world nation. If you don't, then I guess all bets are off.

Feminism is about the destruction of western civilization by breaking apart it's foundation - the home. It's chorus is the sound of dark gods laughing as we fall into the abyss...of shadowy smiles as an empire crumbles.

It is not and never was about equal pay for equal work. Too many people (men and women alike) buy this bullshit.

On a lighter note, I think Sarah Palin is swell and hope everyone has a good weekend :D

Simply this - beyond birthing, women are biologically superior to raise and nurture children, which are the future of our civilization as they develop into well-rounded adults who perpetuate the civilization. It is what they are designed to do and the most important function they have in a society.

A man's role is to provide security and stability for this endeavor to the best of his ability. It is what they are designed to do.

As you are a biologist I also hope you understand that chimpanzees have never organized civilizations on level of which modern humans now reside.

Equating humans to "our nearest relatives" means absolutely nothing in regards to the future of civilization, the western variety in particular.

Women are indeed biologically-ordained into the role I outlined by virtue of their sex, for if they ignore that role in large enough numbers we are doomed.

If arguing the particulars of biology in general and our collective relationship to facets of the animal kingdom is your aim, I have no quarrel with you as I tend to believe humanity is rather different than the rest on a macro level. Discussing micro such as cell structure and DNA strands is out of my league as I am not a biologist.

1. If Mr. Hanson wants to talk about his "personal experiences" and what he thinks feminism "started out as", thats fine. It can be dismissed as the irrelevant idiosyncracy it is. But he claims much more in his misty -eyed reminisciences of a feminism that never existed. His construction of Feminism-Before-The-Fall amounts to revisionist propaganda.

He presumes to lecture us on what feminism really, really is or was ,and how it has gone astry. He is making fact-claims-- not reporting his "personal experiences".

2. His claims as to what feminism originally was are so absurd as to provoke shock , anger,or laughter from anyone who has actually read anything or listened to feminists-- or values the truth. Virtually every position he attributes to this Mythological "good ole feminism" that "most of us (?) still believe in" (!)- is absurdly false... diametrically opposed to the recorded positions of feminists...(1)feminists don't deny innate differences ?! ( that was and is the entire agenda of feminism -- the social construction of gender ! feminists do recognize innate sex differences whenever it serves their interest, however)..... (2)don't ask for special treatment ??! ( feminism IS a socio-political strategy to create special rights/priveleges for women)..... (3) feminism included the homeschoolin' homemaker ?-- when it specifically condemned that "role" in the most vile terms imaginable and stated that such "parastical dependency and infantilism " was incompatible with being an adult person!... 4) feminism included women of ALL political and religious beliefs ?... so a conservative Catholic woman can be a feminist ?

3. In his hands, the term "feminism" has been stripped of historical content and meaning and re-defined as its opposite-- basically, now, a feel-good, do-your-own-thing, tolerant, accepting , self-evident, majoritarian, moderate modernism.Thats propaganda.Hanson's article is Orwellian in its reversal of the truth...and it should be exposed as such.

I doubt he has sinister intent-- or his comments would be more subtle and not so easly demonstrated to be false.-- but the result is the same. This KOOL-AID he has imbibed and is now asking us to drink--- needs to be labelled KOOL-AID .

PS--- The claim that "feminism" includes and embraces all religious faiths and political positions is breathtakingly ridiculous-- to do so, feminism would have to be non-controversial, self-evident and utterly vanilla. Everyone would be a "feminist" then. Orwellian/ Lewis Carroll-like.

Feminism is basically very dumb, warmed over neo-Marxism, with the family as the tool of oppression, women the oppressed proletariat, and all of human history , a history of men ( the ruling class) oppressing women ( the class struggle). Feminism is Marxism. --the goal of the dissolution of the family and public child care are both fundamental tenets of feminism. Once could go on indefintely, but being a feminist entails a very specific set of political and "religious" viewpoints, which are incompatible with other religious and political positions.

Please advise us all on the relevance or lack there-of biologically- based sex differences. Unlike jl, I would like to argue the particulars... "please be elaborate and precise", as you advised him to.. and " Please, pray tell, expand on that theme..."

Davis Hansen is correct. What feminists and pundits fail to recognize however is what operationally caused feminism.

Radical changes occurred in the economic life of women between 1920 and 1960.

Because I grew up on a 10,000 acre remote ranch in Montana, in the 1950s I witnessed the workday of wives and mothers decrease from a hellish 5AM to 8PM non-stop set of economic tasks ranging from stoking the fire on the cook stove at 5AM, through sowing on a pedal swing machine at 8PM. Here are just some of the technologies reducing economic household tasks of women to 3-4 hours per day:

Another good book is by Rhona Mahony, titled "Kidding Ourselves -- Babies, Breadwinning, and Bargaining Power." I was privileged to have a most enjoyable email exchange with Dr. Mahony about her book after I'd read it.

One of the principal problems with the term "feminism" is that, as with so many words appropriated by the left, it has completely lost its original meaning -- which is why many women no longer wish to claim it.

I argue that by any rational standard, Sarah Palin is a shining example of what an equity feminist can be (I'd say the same thing about my beloved bride, but I'd be accused of merely being smitten [g]); the hysterically-screeching leftists demanding her head (or her womb; take your pick) represent the other kind.

There is a distinct difference between Feminism, as in the 1960s Marxist movement, and feminism, as in the advocation of women being their own person as lived by many of my ancestors including my paternal grandmother and my maternal grandfather as well as my mother.

Modern day Feminism has become an ugly combination of Marxism and abortion.

As you are a biologist I also hope you understand that chimpanzees have never organized civilizations on level of which modern humans now reside.

Yep. Even they have societies where females play a greater role than just breed and feed.

Equating humans to "our nearest relatives" means absolutely nothing in regards to the future of civilization, the western variety in particular.

I was keeping it in the context of biology. It doesn't enter into those regards either.

Women are indeed biologically-ordained into the role I outlined by virtue of their sex, for if they ignore that role in large enough numbers we are doomed.

You "outlined" no role other than brearer and child-raiser. Men are quite capable of the latter.

I think the trouble is your use of "role". Other than breed and feed, what is their role? I don't see women in just those terms.

If arguing the particulars of biology in general and our collective relationship to facets of the animal kingdom is your aim, I have no quarrel with you as I tend to believe humanity is rather different than the rest on a macro level.

Um, if you wish to ignore biology, then simply say "I think women's role is" rather than attempting to use biology as a bolster.

lovemelikeareptile --

"Step into the brair patch."

By creating a straw argument for you to pick at? He made a scientific statement he couldn't back up. I don't have a hypothesis as to what the "role" of women is in human societies.

Yep. Even they have societies where females play a greater role than just breed and feed.

Most important function implies other roles or functions. Perhaps this was not covered in your biology studies.

I was keeping it in the context of biology. It doesn't enter into those regards either.

Ok, so essentially you are playing word-police (mind you, I still don't get your aversion to the term and what I used it for) and looking to pick a fight because you did not like the way I used the term "biologically-ordained" in reference to how gender gives a woman very important role in our civilization. Your problem, I explained myself.

You "outlined" no role other than brearer and child-raiser. Men are quite capable of the latter.

What part of "most important function" do you not understand? What do you not understand about "designed to do"?

Most important implies other roles, designed implies a higher proficiency. Sure I can use duct tape to fix a door, but there are better tools.

I think the trouble is your use of "role". Other than breed and feed, what is their role? I don't see women in just those terms.

I think the trouble is that you think I wrote my original post for a biologist on the internet who wants a diserning outline of the complete roles of the sexes. I outlined what I think the most important are for our civilization. That's all you get at this junction Olig.

Um, if you wish to ignore biology, then simply say "I think women's role is" rather than attempting to use biology as a bolster.

Um, I don't. The biological fact that the sexes are different and fit into these roles in our society is central to my point.

He made a scientific statement he couldn't back up.

Eh? Are you serious? Bringing out the chimps and declaring your aptitude for biology isn't exactly a compelling refutation.

I don't have a hypothesis as to what the "role" of women is in human societies

Now I may be a wuss, or at least an old softy, (not THAT old, thank you) but a term I have not heard concerning a woman's "role" in society, from a male standpoint, is "best friend".

I thought I married my best friend once. Didn't pan out, though. And we sure didn't end up as best friends. And I blame as much of that on the courts, lawyers, the gender wars, and unhappy females that "advised" my ex on how to be as unhappy as they are. That sure did work. Never have I seen a more miserable individual all these years later, than my ex.

But while it was working, being able to hug and be hugged by my best friend, have incredible sex with my best friend (thrills and chills that still give me goose bumps when I think about it) and open up completely and let it all hang out, sharing every square inch of the human experience with my best friend, sure was good. And we had some great kids together.

"I outlined what I think the most important are for our civilization."

All you've pointed out is the foundation of sexed life, reproduction. That has not a thing to do with a "biologically-ordained place in civilized society".

"The biological fact that the sexes are different and fit into these roles in our society is central to my point."

Again, the only thing you've mentioned is reproduction. No further roles, and there are many. At the moment your point is, women can bear children.

Got it. You think it's important that humanity reproduce. I do too. That in no way means it's a sole role or that those who do not or cannot engage in that particular activity are diminished as either humans, civilized people or worthwhile members of society.

I have to presume you feel Feminism has always been about certain women ignoring their requirement to reproduce for the continuation of a society at the expense of responsible men and women.

Most Important implies that there must also be less important. This means more than one.

”All you've pointed out is the foundation of sexed life, reproduction. That has not a thing to do with a "biologically-ordained place in civilized society".

No, you’ve reduced it to reproduction, or birthing as you’ve said. I specifically said raising and nurturing to go beyond that. Some specifically human female proclivities that aid in raising children include but are not limited to a larger volume of socializing and word usage than their male counterparts, a larger desire for security over freedom, and of course the obvious one of breast milk.

And before you launch into how this does not entail any real standing in biology, I give you -

“Biology is a branch of the natural and is the study of living organisms and how they interact with their environment. Biology deals with every aspect of life in a living organism.” – wikipedia

Take it up with wiki and edit to your definition if you don’t agree.

“Again, the only thing you've mentioned is reproduction. No further roles, and there are many. At the moment your point is, women can bear children.”

Wrong. You mentioned birthing, remember? I do agree that falls into what I’m talking about, biologically speaking, but you asked me to go beyond that and I mentioned raising and nurturing.

”Got it. You think it's important that humanity reproduce. I do too. That in no way means it's a sole role or that those who do not or cannot engage in that particular activity are diminished as either humans, civilized people or worthwhile members of society. “

We agree on something. HOORAY! :D

I think members that choose to not reproduce, not due to circumstances beyond their control (accidents, bad luck, bad hair, etc) and whether they are diminished or not is arguable. But that is another argument.

”I have to presume you feel

Feminism has always been about certain women ignoring their requirement to reproduce for the continuation of a society at the expense of responsible men and women.

Would that be a correct paraphrasing?”

No.

”Not when one grasps the immense variability of the human animal.”

Cute. Such a noble reason for not discussing the role of the female in human civilization. Just too damn smart to try to tackle that!

It certainly wouldn’t have anything to do with how you approached me initially, asking for a “elaborate and precise” definition of what I meant biologically, then slamming me with the “OH YEAH BY THE WAY IM A BIOLOGIST” in your follow-up post. You know damn well you were trying to set a massive trap. I’m just thankful I kept things relatively unprecise nor elaborate.

No, it couldn’t be that you’d fear you’d be treated in the same manner. Nah, can’t be it.

I can’t help but wonder how many times you’ve tried to play this trick.